Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

02 July  2019

Death Penalty – Indian analysis v Sri Lankan analysis

[Yet, the ultimate question pertains not to the relevance and need for death-penalty, but to the powers for the Executive President, as it stands today, to sign off death warrants, unilaterally, and maybe withdraw the same, again unilaterally. In neighbouring nations like India, there are recorded Supreme Court decisions, dating back to the days of Indira Gandhi assassins, where the constitutional powers of the nation’s President, to decide on clemency petitions of death-row convicts, were ruled as being ‘objective’ and not ‘subjective’.

Interpreted in common man’s lingo, it means that in India, the President cannot act unilaterally in the matter, but has to act on the ‘aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as the head’. The assumption, as also the reality, is that the Indian Council of Ministers, acting through the Union Cabinet, has always been guided by bureaucratic inputs in the matter, with no cause for concern about the politicisation of such decisions.] Colombo Gazette article headed ‘Executions under Executive Presidency’ by N Sathiya Moorthy .

An outcome based decision is objective. Such a decision could be could be with or without belief. Just because it is made by one individual – Mr Sirisena in this instance does not necessarily make it Subjective nor does the decision become Objective because it is has been passed through ‘Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.’ If that group is driven by personal and/or group benefits – it is still Subjective. An objective decision is confirmed by the test of science – that the connection between policy (cause) and the outcome (effect) could be worked out independent of any subject’s endorsements.  It must be right for us as per our conscience on the basis of our own investment in the policy. If we become the policy – then our Equal and Opposite partner is the Effect of that policy. In the Objective pathway we do not see the person/s involved but go from Causal Energy direct to manifestation of the Objectively measurable Mass/ outcome. We do not see any person interpreting on the way. It is Policy = Mass equation. In terms of Politics it is Policy = votes equation. This means the number of votes that one has earned should not be more or less due to the application.

Using Newton’s third law of motion, we accept that there is an Equal and Opposite reaction  to every action. When we are able to make that connection – with a still mind – we would register the outcome as a direct translation of the policy. That is when the decision confirms the Objective pathway. Newton did not need a group endorsement to declare his policy. If Mr Sirisena had made the policy which would confirm democracy – he would not need a Council of Ministers to endorse it. But that independence was lost when he reinstated Mr Rajapaksa in breach of the promise given to the voters – to abolish the falsity of voters lacking in belief. If there was even one believer in Sri Lanka whose true feelings for Sri Lanka were stronger than that of Mr Sirisena – that person has the power to expose Mr Sirisena’s own falsity. Now this has extended to taking the lives of those very voters whom he had the responsibility to cure through democratic process or through the Buddhist pathway. Buddha as per my belief would not kill but cure by including the criminal as a follower. Hence the signing of the death penalty confirms deviation from Buddha’s pathway.

The reason is radicalization. Those who believe in rebirth – would identify with the policy that we need to take only the Truth of our life in one structure when we go into a different structure. If we take the memory of benefits – then we rely on the old structure that produced those benefits. When we use that old structure in a new environment – it is by effect radicalization. When combined with death penalty – it becomes violent radicalization. In the case of Mr Sirisena, this began with the Rajapaksa regime during which soldiers killed indiscriminately. By celebrating that as victory – the government went back to the pre-democratic time when rulers used subjective powers to mark rights and wrongs.

Wikipedia reports as follows about the death penalty in Sri Lanka:

[The death penalty has a long history in Sri Lanka. The British restricted the death penalty after they took control of the island in 1815 to the crimes of murder and "waging war against the King."

After independence, then Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike abolished capital punishment in 1956. However, it was quickly reintroduced after his assassination in 1959. Opposition to the death penalty started to become increasingly widespread and the United National Party government modified the use of it in its 1978 rewrite of the constitution. Under the new arrangement, death sentences could only be carried out if authorized by the trial judge, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice. If there was no agreement, the sentence was to be commuted to life imprisonment. The sentence was also to be ratified by the President. This clause effectively ended executions. The last execution in Sri Lanka took place in 1976.]

The origin was in British rule – where the King was the ultimate decider. This place was allocated to the leading Buddhist monk. It is noteworthy that Mr Bandaranaike His mind order at that time is confirmed as follows:

[In order to promote Sinhalese culture and community interests, Bandaranaike founded the Sinhala Maha Sabha in 1936. He introduced the Free Lanka Bill in the State Council in 1945  .  In 1947, when Leader of the House, D. S. Senanayake presented the Soulbury Constitution to the State Council, Bandaranaike seconded the motion stating that he does so as the Sinhala Maha Sabha was the largest party in the State Council……..

He contested for the newly formed House of Representatives in the 1947 election from the UNP from Attanagalla, winning with a good majority. In September 1947, D. S. Senanayake appointed him to his cabinet as the first Minister of Health and Local Government of Ceylon and he was elected as the Leader of the House. Effectively this made Bandaranaike the most senior member of the cabinet, after the Prime Minister. In fact, Senanayake had Sir Oliver Goonetilleke discuss with Bandaranaike as leader of the Sinhala Maha Sabha, the draft agreements for independence; which Bandaranaike received with mixed feelings. However, he did not object and the agreements signed with the Britain government making way for Ceylon to gain self-rule. As leader of the house, he delivered the address of thanks at the ceremonial opening of parliament on 4 February 1948, which marked Ceylon's independence from Britain.] Wikipedia

The above confirms that Mr Bandaranaike rose to power through Sinhala Maha Sabha and as we know – he was given the death sentence also by that group. The following report confirms how he expressed his cure from that Buddhist Radicalization:

[Talduwe Somarama, a Buddhist monk responsible for the assassination of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike in 1959. He was executed by hanging on July 6 1962. A fortnight before his execution, he gave up his robes, and two days before, he was baptised by an Anglican priest] Wikipedia

In essence when we bring the past as is to benefit in our current period which has a new structure – it amounts to radicalization because the effects are exponential in value. This manifestation  is naturally invoked by someone who carries the past as Belief but is not respected by the leader, when that believer is active in the same group as the apparent leader.  It is to prevent such manifestations that the rulers usually had religious leaders as their advisors.

One needs to ask whether the ‘spirit’ of Mr Bandaranaike worked through his daughter in this regard:

[Over the last decade, however, president Chandrika Kumaratunga made several attempts to re-introduce the death penalty. In March 1999, after spurts of violence near the end of her first term in office, she stated that the government would be reintroducing the death penalty. However, she was forced to back down in the face of overwhelming public protest. The issue hung in the balance, with all death sentences from then on being neither commuted to life nor carried out. After discussions were held regarding the matter, the motion that commuted all death sentences to life in prison was revoked in January 2001.

On November 19, 2004, High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya was gunned down as he arrived home from work. He had a reputation for handing out tough sentences. The assassination immediately prompted Kumaratunga to effectively reinstate capital punishment.]

When the law based on one’s experienced truth – is vastly different to the law used to punish an offender, the punishment becomes excessive and to the extent the punished has deeper ownership in the issue – s/he has the power to reverse it to punish the punisher. Hasty rulers may panic and resort to revenge by taking an eye for an eye.

The Wikipedia reports as follows in relation to what happened before the current president reintroduced the Death Penalty:

[With the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War the country saw a sharp rise in child abuse, rape, murder and drug trafficking, prompting some lawyers and politicians to call for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena, in 2015, said he supports a dialogue on the introduction of the death penalty should it be approved by Parliament. The statement coming after a series of high profile incidents of rape, killing and sexual abuse.]

Punishment by death was part of the rule by militants. By claiming victory over the LTTE – the government confirmed that they were using the same yardstick as the LTTE  - to punish or to reward. Both used the achievements of the past for current benefits. Victory cannot be claimed over another without the use of common yardstick. In other words they were endorsing the LTTE using the death penalty and now this president is confirming that as law.

This is why they say ‘As you sow – so shall you reap’ . Yes, the decision is highly subjective – not because President Sirisena is approving it – but because LTTE is working through the mind of the President to write their own rule as Sri Lanka’s. A radicalized mind is a haunted mind. A believing mind is a sacred mind. The problem is not that it is subjective but whether it activates the skin of past personalities who left unfinished business that tempts the frivolous mind.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

01 July  2019

Twin Apex Powers

[When the 1972 constitution was being prepared and when J.R. suggested executive presidency, Dr.Colvin R. de Silva said don’t have two centres of power at the Apex of the state.

Then Dudley (Senanayake) said at the constituent assembly, opposing J.R.’s proposal – “this may have worked in France and the US for historical reasons but it won’t work for our kind of countries”. This is what we have now, two power centres, because the original 19-A was diluted.“I think we have gone quite close to parliamentary form of government, we must complete that,” he said it is the only way to fulfill the Janaury 8, 2015 promises made to the people and Ven.Sobhitha Thera.

He said that the Sama Samaja party has always backed a parliamentary form of government. Referring to MP Dayasiri Jayasekera’s comments that he (Dr Wickremaratne) being the main architect of ‘ 19-A’, had deceived the president, Dr.Wickramaratna said, “I think president is above such baseless comments.”] Sunday Observer article headed ‘Redress 19A flaws with 20A -Dr Jayampathy’

We make decisions :

(i)             To ‘show’ immediate outcomes that would benefit us

(ii)           To satisfy the laws applicable  to a group that we are part of

(iii)         As per the truth within us.

Let us take Dr Jayampathy’s  statement “I think we have gone quite close to parliamentary form of government, we must complete that,” (he said) it is the only way to fulfil the Janaury 8, 2015 promises made to the people and Ven.Sobhitha Thera.”

Why is the government bound to fulfil the January 8, 2015 promises to the People AND to Ven Sobhitha Thera – Is it not because we already had two Apex powers before the 19^th Amendment or even before the 1978 Constitution – one Buddhist and the other the power of the People through their elected representatives? The 1972 Constitution created that twin Apex power. The 1978 constitution made the Sri Lankan power sharing into three aspects – like the Hindu Holy Trinity – Bramah the Creator, Vishnu the Protector and Shiva the Destroyer – of Body / Form consciousness. Since Buddha said ‘Aasai Aramin’ / Riddance of Desire – we could take it that Lord Buddha is the Buddhist parallel of  Hindu Lord Shiva. The People who elect government are Bramah. The Executive is Vishnu who protects the form that represents Truth. By wanting to satisfy a Buddhist leader – did the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution separate Non-Buddhists from Buddhists? Did that result in the President not connecting to the minds of other Apex leaders by religion – for example Muslims and Christians who became aliens to each other as well as to Buddhists?

If the Constitution  makes us non-Buddhists,  juniors to Buddhists – and we take that position – as we often do when we migrate to Western countries – what effect does it have on the real? What happened when Mr John Howard remained silent – when Ms Pauline Hanson asked us migrants to go back ‘home’. I got ready to go back to Sri Lanka but Lord Murugan prevented me and asked me to become an Equal Opposition. In contrast – Tamil militants who became juniors in India and Muslim militants who because juniors in the Middle East – promoted their own parallel to Buddhist autocracy. To the extent they are punished more than their Buddhist parallels they  – make  the democratic powers of the Constitution lifeless.  In essence, one who is empowered by Buddhism has no authority over those who are empowered by other religions nor democracy.

Each time a leader who came to power by claim (express or understood)  of promoting Buddhism draws benefits as per the system of Democracy s/he becomes indebted to Democracy. That indebtedness becomes a sin when there is change in the power structure. Once it becomes a sin – the system of Truth is in control and some of us become the media through which the system of Truth manifests the outcomes. In the case of Bramah group – the connections would be visible. In the case of Vishnu group – the connections would be commonly known. In the case of Shiva group – only quiet belief would help identify with the connection between cause and effect. That group renders eternal power to the constitution because they and the constitution are One.

Dr Jayampathy indicates the lack of this absolute ownership power as follows:

[Dr.Wickramaratne said a small group of lawyers, who had experience in Constitutional law, were assigned to prepare the initial draft of the amendment, in consultation with the cabinet Sub-committee. The original draft of 19-A, provided for the complete abolition of the executive presidency preserving the provisions which allowed the president to be elected by the people. This was retained since, the idea was not to make changes that will necessitate a referendum.

“That’s because we had told the country at the beginning that we will avoid a referendum. And we were aware that to change the mode of the election a referendum would be needed.”

“The president’s commitment was very clear - to abolish the executive presidency at the outset. We went along with that, and the cabinet subcommittee gave us direction. We also provided our own inputs.”]

The process of  referendum is bypassed only when the architects are driven by absolute faith. Such would be confirmed when blame is accepted instead of being shifted – including to the president who relied heavily on votes. Such influence belongs in category (i) – i.e.  to show immediately. This happens when we are in the company of those driven by politics through apparent majority rather than governance by One.

The sixth amendment to the constitution happened  due to fear of return of karma in the form of Hindu power of India through Tamil militants. As per this amendment:

[(1) No person shall, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka. (2) No political party or other association or organization shall have as one of its aims or objects the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka. ]

If Sri Lanka is a Buddhist  state – the above is in breach of article 9 which states:

[The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).]

One to whom the land is the temple and the customs of that land is the religion – has to be protected by the Government.

If Sri Lanka is a Democratic   state – then article 9 is in breach of articles 1 & 2 which state:

[1. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic and shall be known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 2. The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State.]

Article 9 thus contradicts articles 1 & 2 and needs to be repealed. An article without belief – continuously dilutes the sovereignty of the Constitution and those who use the constitution largely to derive personal benefits.

To the extent these provisions are ‘to show ‘ – they promote hearsay values in the users. Dr Jayampathy is also a victim of such ‘hearsay’ influence.

Ultimately we develop our own true structures for better or for worse. Those who identify that to be ‘worse’ need to surrender to those who have developed structures that are for better. If the gap of separation becomes too wide – such surrender becomes impossible.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

29 June 2019

FOREIGN OR LOCAL ATTACKERS?

Recently I said to a Lankan journalist that I paid my respects to Mr D S Senanayake every morning of my stay here at Galadari hotel. Then the young journalist said that Mr D S Senanayake also had favoured his son Mr Dudley Senanayake above Mr SWRD Bandaranaike who then broke away from the UNP to form the SLFP. I stated that I had no knowledge of that but that the UNP seemed more of an heir of the British system which was more easy for me to follow due to my own background. I thought about it and found the following in Wikipedia under SWRD Bandaranaike:

He (SWRD) contested for the newly formed House of Representatives in the 1947 election from the UNP from Attanagalla, winning with a good majority. In September 1947, D. S. Senanayake appointed him to his cabinet as the first Minister of Health and Local Government of Ceylon and he was elected as the Leader of the House. Effectively this made Bandaranaike the most senior member of the cabinet, after the Prime Minister. In fact, Senanayake had Sir Oliver Goonetilleke discuss with Bandaranaike as leader of the Sinhala Maha Sabha, the draft agreements for independence; which Bandaranaike received with mixed feelings. However, he did not object and the agreements signed with the Britain government making way for Ceylon to gain self-rule. As leader of the house, he delivered the address of thanks at the ceremonial opening of parliament on 4 February 1948, which marked Ceylon's independence from Britain.

During the next few years, he supported legislation proposed by the government as leader of the house. This included the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 and the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No.3 of 1949 which deprived citizenship to Indian Tamils. He initiated several projects for the improvement of health as minister of health, including the expansion of hospitals and uplifting ayurveda medicine. He attended the Third World Health Assembly in Geneva in May 1950 as Chief delegate of Ceylon. However, he found himself at odds with Senanayake administration on policy. By 1951, it also appeared that Senanayake did not intend to make an early retirement that would have allowed Bandaranaike to succeed him as prime minister.

Cross over and formation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party

In July 1951, Bandaranaike resigned from his government posts and crossed the floor to the opposition with several of his close associates from the Sinhala Maha Sabha. Thereafter he dissolved the Sinhala Maha Sabha and formed a new party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party(SLFP) having its inaugural meeting at Town Hall on 2 September 1951.

A few months later, on 21 March 1952 D. S. Senanayake fell off his horse after suffering a stroke and died the following day. Although SirJohn Kotelawala was expected to succeed him, his son Dudley Senanayake, Minister of Agriculture was appointed Prime Minister on 26 March 1952 by the Governor-General Lord Soulbury. Dudley Senanayake called a general election in 1952, which the UNP won gaining 54 seats in parliament.]

When Tamil politicians  separated themselves from Sinhalese politicians - they were labeled ‘separatists’ Tamil militants gave credibility to such description. The breakaway from UNP to form SLFP on the other hand was accepted as being within the laws of democracy. In both - it is about ‘home rule’ based on belief. 

The above account of ‘what happened’ contradicts the ‘judgment’ by the young Lankan journalist and cleared the status of Mr D S Senanayake in my mind. I concluded that the young journalist lacked the ‘experience’ to identify with the truth. If the young journalist had respected Mr SWRD Bandaranaike as his elder - then he would have stated the parallel of my appreciation for Mr D S Senanayake. Instead by finding fault - the Lankan journalist  was taking senior position above Mr D S Senanayake. This is a serious risk with those who lack the experience but enjoy ‘freedom of expression’. 

By genuinely respecting seniors and elders - we bring them into ourselves. Knowledge without experience blocks this merger with the past. Truth is experienced. Fact is a starting point or destination of that travel through truth. To the extent Mr D S Senanayake and I believed in the British heritage - we become ‘common’. To majority Tamils whose higher education is of heritage value - the likes of  Mr D S Senanayake would be part of that heritage. Here in Colombo CBD when I go to places like Pagoda Restaurant where I had quality food but tightly budgeted - I have the positive deja vu experience. It is positive because I can now afford much more than I did as a student. But the quantity is still the same - due to my age. But the feeling of financial affordability is great. The past experience where I lived within my budget supports my current feeling of true ‘freedom’ from desire. 

Knowledge like food - needs to be limited according to the experiences we are ready to have for us to become independent of the desire for knowledge. 

The connection I identified with through the Wikipedia report was the common details between Mr Sirisena who was strongly influenced by Mr  SWRD Bandaranaike’s daughter - Madam Kumaratunga when Mr Sirisena broke away from the Rajapaksa regime to contest in the Presidential elections. Mr Sirisena was also Health Minister in the Rajapaksa regime. Like Mr  SWRD Bandaranaike, Mr Sirisena also actively promoted the Buddhist leadership. The question that comes to mind is whether Madam Kumaratunga channelled her father through Mr Sirisena ? 

In his article headed ‘How real is the challenge of jihadist attacks in Sri Lanka?’ - Dr Ely Karmon of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism states:

[According to a report by SITE Intel group, which monitors jihadi networks and forums, ISIS supporters portrayed the attacks as revenge for strikes on mosques and Muslims in general. In this author’s evaluation the attacks could be a direct revenge for the massacre in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, by Australian radical right-wing terrorist Brenton Harrison Tarrant.]

What happened would be interpreted by us in diverse ways. To the extent we have the experience - as if it happened to us we would find the solution through why it happened to us. Towards this we need to feel part of one group or the other and have their experience as ours. It would be difficult for Sinhalese soldiers who had to fight against the anti-Muslim -  Tamil group LTTE - to act against Muslims so long as they are actively against the LTTE. That would explain the lack of action to discipline Muslim rebels who have become the Government’s Reserve forces against Tamil militants. A militant without belief - is the parallel of politician who promotes religion for votes. When the former is punished by the latter - both reproduce exponentially. That is the problem with using the name of belief for pleasure. It has the effect of blasphemy. Is Christchurch massacre connected to the Sri Lankan bombings? Yes - through this frivolous use of Nationalism by Politicians and Militants and Jihadism by those who have given up on the sanctity of life. 

Whether it was foreign or local force that caused the attack could be worked out by the effects provided there are clear lines of demarcation between the groups. When a government neglects its local group - they are easily adopted by the Stateless like ISIS. One who becomes international by showing international power that s/he/it has not earned - is Stateless. The true global mind would easily make them the youngest children of global village that is experienced and not seen. 

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

28 June 2019

THE WHEELS OF DEMOCRATIC JUGGERNAUT

[President Maithripala Sirisena and the government are at loggerheads and the country is like a rudderless boat. Their latest battle is over the 19th Amendment (19A). The President never misses an opportunity to condemn 19A as a curse and call for its abolition together with the 18th Amendment (18A). He seems to be under the impression that it is the only problem the country is beset with. The government is defending 19A to the hilt.] Island article headed ‘Constitutional legerdemain’

The person driven by desire often is not able to envision the other side of enjoying the fruits of that desire. We have political opposition in democracy to offset such manifestations. If the President claims that the 19th Amendment is a curse - one driven by true investment in the Constitution would know to classify such as an expression of current desire or the other side of past desire. Unless the Opposition negates it - the Parliament would experience with passage of time - the other side of desire - which is fear. That is a law of nature for the emotionally driven. If the President’s conclusion is genuine - then one is entitled to conclude that the President is now experiencing ‘fear’ and ‘anxiety’ - which are the other side of his desire when he effectively said ‘yes’ to the 19th Amendment through his election promises to the public who believed in the Presidency.  

It is for these reasons that strong opposition is essential in democracy where one is entitled to the freedom of belief based speech. We are so entitled even if the law of the country does not specifically spell it out but we actually believe in the substance our expressions as if we are both sides. 

Let us say - there was no 19th Amendment to the Constitution. It is highly likely that Mr Sirisena who lacks the will to take responsibility but is rather driven by his master’s voice would have become the medium through whom Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa would have become the next president. If he were able to show economic affluence - the voter driven by immediate  enjoyment would vote for him and also for the other side - fear and anxiety of ‘foreign’ rule. As per my understanding of the system of karma - I take ‘senior’ position with a defaulting debtor. This actually stops the other side manifesting to hurt the person who enjoyed the fruits of my work. Hence when a lending nation - say China -  cannot be repaid and  we become their juniors - we stop the return of karma in the form of the equal other side i.e. - fear of invasion. But if we claim that we are sovereign power - then we have earned the liability of invasion. The duty of an Opposition in Democracy is to prevent such invasions by producing the other side immediately.

When votes are taken without belief in promises expressed - and the vote-taking politician does not become a mental junior  to the voter - the other side returns. Mr Sirisena is confirming this return through attacks on the 19th Amendment - which essentially is the manifestation of the other side of his election promises. If Mr Sirisena had become mentally humble with the Sri Lankan who voted for him on the basis of that promise - he would have stopped the return of the other side of his desire - as fear. Last night this was the basis of our discussion in the beautiful home of a global minded Sri Lankan of Sinhalese origin. Such true sharing invokes the blessings of the system of truth which empowers all those to whom that place is ‘home’. The voter who identifies with the truth - protects Sri Lanka from the return of such other sides of political desires. It is towards this prevention that the 19th Amendment ought to have happened. 

As per the above article:

[UNF MP Dr. Jayampathy Wicrkremaratne thinks the solution to the present crisis is to restore the original version of 19A. The country is in the current mess because the architects of 19A worked according to a hidden agenda; they wanted to strip the President of some of his vital executive powers and transfer them to the PM. As a writer points out in his article on the opposite page, the Supreme Court, in the Nineteenth Amendment determination, said that such action would be inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution. This is exactly what has happened. How 19A in its original form could help bring order out of chaos is anybody’s guess. The executive presidency has been enervated and the position of the Prime Minister strengthened.

If the original 19A is to be adopted, then there will have to be a referendum. It is surprising that the current version of 19A was passed without being approved by the people at a referendum, for the Constitution has undergone fundamental changes.]

The 19th Amendment in terms of Rights of the individual citizen is less powerful than the 1972 Constitution - the history of this which is presented by Wikipedia as follows:

[Executive power was nominally vested in the Sovereign of Ceylon, while legislative powers were vested with a semi-independent parliament. Several perceived weaknesses of the 1947 Soulbury Constitution, however, eventually led to calls for a replacement, particularly from nationalists and the Left, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party's Colvin R. de Silva being a central figure in the movement.

“We seek your mandate to permit the members of Parliament you elect to function simultaneously as a Constituent Assembly to draft, adopt and operate a new Constitution. This Constitution will declare Ceylon to be a free, sovereign and independent Republic pledged to realise the objectives of a socialist democracy; and it will also secure fundamental rights and freedoms to all citizens.”

— Manifesto of the United Front, 1970, 

The United Front, led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike's Sri Lanka Freedom Party, won the 1970 general election with a two-thirds majority. As Prime Minister, Bandaranaike convened a number of committees to draft a new constitution, including a drafting committee chaired by the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Colvin R. de Silva.]

The resulting document was tabled in parliament, voted on and adopted on 22 May 1972 by a vote of 119 to 16 against.]

There was no referandum facilitated for the People to directly  approve the new constitution which afforded Buddhism foremost place in Sri Lanka. This logically means that non-Buddhists are juniors in Sri Lanka. That deprived Sri Lanka through its constitutional rights - of its validity as a member of any democratic group and therefore support of that group’s natural powers. In wider world - Sri Lanka becomes a junior to  nations that have majority power including through custody of money. The other side happens in our mind automatically if we fail to consolidate the two sides through common belief. The Easter Bombings through which we have learnt of Middle Eastern monies flowing unofficially into Sri Lanka - confirm this kind of autocracy by affluent people living off the work of their seniors  and ancestors  but without paying due respects to those ancestors and  seniors. The senior-junior relationship needs to be completed through respect and/or gratitude - for it to naturally empower the whole. 

Had Equal status to all religions been specified in the Constitution - the Buddhist clergy are less likely to have played the senior’s role in politics. Each time Buddhist politicians drew benefits as per the system of Democracy - they automatically promoted the parallel of Buddhism foremost in other religions where the respective religion’s members are in majority.  Hindus thus showed this power by showing Indians as their seniors and Muslims - by showing Middle Easterners as their seniors. 

It is to stop the wheels of karma continuing in a particular issue at the lower level that we need the equal other side - emotionally - through people who see only their side or reliable laws that facilitate us to intellectually see both sides through a law born out of truth discovered by a group. To the extent the judiciary respects our judicial ancestors - from whom we inherited a certain law - - be it customary law of this land or the law genuinely practiced by rulers from other lands - that law is reliable. To the extent we use the laws without paying our respects -  we open the pathway for the return of the other side at the lower level - which upsets the mind order of both side litigants. 

Mr Sirisena who sought the direction of the Judiciary in relation to his term in the current position, has the duty to refrain from disrespecting the judiciary also through his emotional criticism of the 19th Amendment. The transfer of Executive power from the President who enjoys immunity from prosecution, to the Prime Minister who could be dismissed by no confidence motion - in Parliament - has made the Constitution more democratic. The parallel of that in terms of religion would be to make Buddhism of equal status to other religions - and thus stop the return of the other side by foreigners from India and Middle East where they have their religious heirs, at a level where the seen is believed. 

Every person is born with the capability of self-governance in his/her  home environment. If that home is not developed within lawful borders due to government restrictions - members of that group  have the moral right to consider others from outside that land - in this instance Sri Lanka - to realise their Sovereignty. If they are punished for this - by using a law that the punisher does not believe in - the return happens to exponentially hurt that leader and all those who failed to Oppose that leader despite being entitled to the democratic power to do so. Thus Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith made himself  a junior to Buddhism foremost Political leader. Hence he lost the power to protect his followers from the attack of those who did so oppose. 

The Sydney taxi driver who drove me to the airport said to me about the Easter Bombings - that the Muslim community ought to have disciplined the bombers at the early stages of rebellion. Muslim women became the first target of this government - and one is entitled to conclude that this is because they are seen as being less powerful than the men in Muslim community. Such a government has no moral authority to expect internal discipline by Muslims with intuitive power to confidentially transform the weak members of their families. In addition, the Christian community in Sri Lanka also failed to discipline its leadership which was promoting Buddhist seniority and therefore lost the protection of Democracy. Every time we genuinely oppose breach of democracy - we are blessed by democracy.

Recently I wrote as follows about such ceilings that we allow others to place on us:

[If the litigant does not have a say - including about delays - to my mind, it places a ceiling on our participation ,  at that level. The rest is a game of subjective powers between lawyers and their influence over judges.]

Ultimately we the citizens are responsible for what happens - to the extent we failed to participate in good governance through our own true experiences. It is our duty to complete experiences at the level from which we expect returns.